EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE SON’S IGNORANCE OF THE HOUR
In this post I share how some of the early Church’s greatest theologians, scholars and/or apologists explained our Lord’s statement in Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 that the Father alone knows the day and hour of the Son’s coming in judgment against Jerusalem.
The readers will see that these church fathers and/or writers explained the Son’s ignorance of the hour in reference to his possessing a human nature, understanding that the Son did not know the day of his coming to judge by virtue of his Manhood, in which he took to himself a human soul and mind wherein he did not know all things.
These early theologians were also careful to make clear that the Holy Spirit was excluded from our Lord’s statement that no one but the Father knows the day or hour, since Jesus did not have the Spirit in view when he uttered these words.
I made sure to quote as much of the immediate context of these particular fathers in order to enable the readers to see just how theologically rich and spiritually profound their understanding of the God-breathed Scriptures happened to be. This is primarily why some of these citations are quite lengthy. All emphasis shall be mine.
ST. HILARY OF POITIERS
On The Trinity
Book IX
1. In the last book we treated of the indistinguishable nature of God the Father and God the Son, and demonstrated that the words, I and the Father are One John 10:30, go to prove not a solitary God, but a unity of the Godhead unbroken by the birth of the Son: for God can be born only of God, and He that is born God of God must be all that God is. We reviewed, although not exhaustively, yet enough to make our meaning clear, the sayings of our Lord and the Apostles, which teach the inseparable nature and power of the Father and the Son; and we came to the passage in the teaching of the Apostle, where he says, Take heed lest there shall be any one that leads you astray through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9 We pointed out that here the words, in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, prove Him true and perfect God of His Father’s nature, neither severing Him from, nor identifying Him with, the Father. On the one hand we are taught that, since the incorporeal God dwelt in Him bodily, the Son as God begotten of God is in natural unity with the Father: and on the other hand, if God dwelt in Christ, this proves the birth of the personal Christ in Whom He dwelt. We have thus, it seems to me, more than answered the irreverence of those who refer to a unity or agreement of will such words of the Lord as, He that has seen Me has seen the Father John 14:9, or, The Father is in Me and I in the Father , or, I and the Father are One , or, All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine. Not daring to deny the words themselves, these false teachers, in the mask of religion, corrupt the sense of the words. For instance, it is true that where the unity of nature is proclaimed the agreement of will cannot be denied; but in order to set aside that unity which follows from the birth, they profess merely a relationship of mutual harmony. But the blessed Apostle, after many indubitable statements of the real truth, cuts short their rash and profane assertions, by saying, in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, for by the bodily indwelling of the incorporeal God in Christ is taught the strict unity of Their nature. It is, therefore, not a matter of words, but a real truth that the Son was not alone, but the Father abode in Him: and not only abode, but also worked and spoke: not only worked and spoke, but also manifested Himself in Him. Through the Mystery of the birth the Son’s power is the power of the Father, His authority the Father’s authority, His nature the Father’s nature. By His birth the Son possesses the nature of the Father: as the Father’s image, He reproduces from the Father all that is in the Father, because He is the reality as well as the image of the Father, for a perfect birth produces a perfect image, and the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Him indicates the truth of His nature.
2. All this is indeed as it is: He, Who is by nature God of God, must possess the nature of His origin, which God possesses, and the indistinguishable unity of a living nature cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. Yet nevertheless the heretics, under cover of the saving confession of the Gospel faith, are stealing on to the subversion of the truth: for by forcing their own interpretations on words uttered with other meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of His natural unity. Thus to deny the Son of God, they quote the authority of His own words, Why do you call Me good? None is good, save one, God. These words, they say, proclaim the Oneness of God: anything else, therefore, which shares the name of God, cannot possess the nature of God, for God is One. And from His words, This is life eternal, that they should know You the only true God John 17:3, they attempt to establish the theory that Christ is called God by a mere title, not as being very God. Further, to exclude Him from the proper nature of the true God, they quote, The Son can do nothing of Himself except that which He has seen the Father do. John 5:19 They use also the text, The Father is greater than I. Finally, when they repeat the words, Of that day and that hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only , as though they were the absolute renunciation of His claim to divinity, they boast that they have overthrown the faith of the Church. The birth, they say, cannot raise to equality the nature which the limitation of ignorance degrades. The Father’s omniscience and the Son’s ignorance reveal unlikeness in the Divinity, for God must be ignorant of nothing, and the ignorant cannot be compared with the omniscient. All these passages they neither understand rationally, nor distinguish as to their occasions, nor apprehend in the light of the Gospel mysteries, nor realize in the strict meaning of the words and so they impugn the divine nature of Christ with crude and insensate rashness, quoting single detached utterances to catch the ears of the unwary, and keeping back either the sequel which explains or the incidents which prompted them, though the meaning of words must be sought in the context before or after them…
answeringislamblog.wordpress.com
In this post I share how some of the early Church’s greatest theologians, scholars and/or apologists explained our Lord’s statement in Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 that the Father alone knows the day and hour of the Son’s coming in judgment against Jerusalem.
The readers will see that these church fathers and/or writers explained the Son’s ignorance of the hour in reference to his possessing a human nature, understanding that the Son did not know the day of his coming to judge by virtue of his Manhood, in which he took to himself a human soul and mind wherein he did not know all things.
These early theologians were also careful to make clear that the Holy Spirit was excluded from our Lord’s statement that no one but the Father knows the day or hour, since Jesus did not have the Spirit in view when he uttered these words.
I made sure to quote as much of the immediate context of these particular fathers in order to enable the readers to see just how theologically rich and spiritually profound their understanding of the God-breathed Scriptures happened to be. This is primarily why some of these citations are quite lengthy. All emphasis shall be mine.
ST. HILARY OF POITIERS
On The Trinity
Book IX
1. In the last book we treated of the indistinguishable nature of God the Father and God the Son, and demonstrated that the words, I and the Father are One John 10:30, go to prove not a solitary God, but a unity of the Godhead unbroken by the birth of the Son: for God can be born only of God, and He that is born God of God must be all that God is. We reviewed, although not exhaustively, yet enough to make our meaning clear, the sayings of our Lord and the Apostles, which teach the inseparable nature and power of the Father and the Son; and we came to the passage in the teaching of the Apostle, where he says, Take heed lest there shall be any one that leads you astray through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9 We pointed out that here the words, in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, prove Him true and perfect God of His Father’s nature, neither severing Him from, nor identifying Him with, the Father. On the one hand we are taught that, since the incorporeal God dwelt in Him bodily, the Son as God begotten of God is in natural unity with the Father: and on the other hand, if God dwelt in Christ, this proves the birth of the personal Christ in Whom He dwelt. We have thus, it seems to me, more than answered the irreverence of those who refer to a unity or agreement of will such words of the Lord as, He that has seen Me has seen the Father John 14:9, or, The Father is in Me and I in the Father , or, I and the Father are One , or, All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine. Not daring to deny the words themselves, these false teachers, in the mask of religion, corrupt the sense of the words. For instance, it is true that where the unity of nature is proclaimed the agreement of will cannot be denied; but in order to set aside that unity which follows from the birth, they profess merely a relationship of mutual harmony. But the blessed Apostle, after many indubitable statements of the real truth, cuts short their rash and profane assertions, by saying, in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, for by the bodily indwelling of the incorporeal God in Christ is taught the strict unity of Their nature. It is, therefore, not a matter of words, but a real truth that the Son was not alone, but the Father abode in Him: and not only abode, but also worked and spoke: not only worked and spoke, but also manifested Himself in Him. Through the Mystery of the birth the Son’s power is the power of the Father, His authority the Father’s authority, His nature the Father’s nature. By His birth the Son possesses the nature of the Father: as the Father’s image, He reproduces from the Father all that is in the Father, because He is the reality as well as the image of the Father, for a perfect birth produces a perfect image, and the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Him indicates the truth of His nature.
2. All this is indeed as it is: He, Who is by nature God of God, must possess the nature of His origin, which God possesses, and the indistinguishable unity of a living nature cannot be divided by the birth of a living nature. Yet nevertheless the heretics, under cover of the saving confession of the Gospel faith, are stealing on to the subversion of the truth: for by forcing their own interpretations on words uttered with other meanings and intentions, they are robbing the Son of His natural unity. Thus to deny the Son of God, they quote the authority of His own words, Why do you call Me good? None is good, save one, God. These words, they say, proclaim the Oneness of God: anything else, therefore, which shares the name of God, cannot possess the nature of God, for God is One. And from His words, This is life eternal, that they should know You the only true God John 17:3, they attempt to establish the theory that Christ is called God by a mere title, not as being very God. Further, to exclude Him from the proper nature of the true God, they quote, The Son can do nothing of Himself except that which He has seen the Father do. John 5:19 They use also the text, The Father is greater than I. Finally, when they repeat the words, Of that day and that hour knows no one, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only , as though they were the absolute renunciation of His claim to divinity, they boast that they have overthrown the faith of the Church. The birth, they say, cannot raise to equality the nature which the limitation of ignorance degrades. The Father’s omniscience and the Son’s ignorance reveal unlikeness in the Divinity, for God must be ignorant of nothing, and the ignorant cannot be compared with the omniscient. All these passages they neither understand rationally, nor distinguish as to their occasions, nor apprehend in the light of the Gospel mysteries, nor realize in the strict meaning of the words and so they impugn the divine nature of Christ with crude and insensate rashness, quoting single detached utterances to catch the ears of the unwary, and keeping back either the sequel which explains or the incidents which prompted them, though the meaning of words must be sought in the context before or after them…
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON THE SON’S IGNORANCE OF THE HOUR
In this post I share how some of the early Church’s greatest theologians, scholars and/or apologists explained our Lord’s statement in Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 that the Father alone knows the d…
answeringislamblog.wordpress.com
